World's first fully ray traced game (mod) released

[laminutederire]

36 minutes ago, mr moose said:

i see absolutely no reason to believe half of what you have just said.  you are literally trying to twist reality to dismiss nvidia's work in the field.  Is it really that insulting to you?

 

 

 

 

 

Is that an Nvidia denoiser? Link

Is that an Nvidia method For granular material rendering? Link

Did nvidia found that method to make heteregenous material rendering faster? Link

Did Nvidia found a way to render clouds through deep learning? Link

Did they improve path guiding drastically? (Link 1 Link 2 )

Have a good read.

(Admitedly Alexander Keller of last link 2 has integrated Nvidia since his work linked (which has been overruled by the state of the art of link 1) ).

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Is that an Nvidia denoiser? Link

Is that an Nvidia method For granular material rendering? Link

Did nvidia found that method to make heteregenous material rendering faster? Link

Did Nvidia found a way to render clouds through deep learning? Link

Did they improve path guiding drastically? (Link 1 Link 2 )

Have a good read.

 

What are you trying to prove here?  You have made several erroneous comments and made the obvious accusations that nvidia don't know what they are doing. Your excuse for their work in RT going back to 2012 is that they are buying out renderman.  Please, it's not that complicated.

 

AS I have already said:

 

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

 this type of technology (like nearly all tech in the world) is a slow evolution.  Each company bases new stuff of what already exists.  If you try to use that evolution to devalue the contribution of whoever comes along next by insinuating that they are just copying or rehashing old stuff and ignore the actual contribution, then you are being very disingenuous to the industry.  

 

 

 

 

Why is it important for you that this is all marketing from nvidia?

[laminutederire]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

 It's now the 4th time I'll have to repeat myself about what I said. Can't you read English properly? What language should I translate it to for you?

1 hour ago, laminutederire said:

Well now you misread me on purpose then. I said that they're not doing cutting edge path tracing. There are other people and companies better than they are at path tracing currently, and well... That's life and that's not saying they don't know anything, or are new to it. That just means that no they're not stomping on everyone doing perfect thing that no one can match. Because that's not the case, they're a player in the game and other companies provide really important insights on how it can be done.

Here you go for the 4th time in English.

 

Then for your other point, Optix being used as an api doesn't mean they researched everything that us being done with it. It's be like you saying me that cuda being an Nvidia thing that means that Nvidia are the only and best  people in AI I'm the whole world forever and that everything Google or anyone else does in deep learning is Nvidias work because they used an Nvidia api.

That's pretty obvious it's not. They're involved in the process but they're not the only people doing something. Same goes for Optix. You can use it as a building block and still innovate way past the original block and have a theoretical expertise that is not included in the one necessary to make Optix.

 

I'm trying to explain you that the rtx approach is incomplete, and that true real time path tracing will only come by Nvidia using ideas from well established players in the rendering scenes such as academics or rendering studios like Disney. But that's something you don't seem to accept. How fanboy can you be to not even allow people to think Nvidia is not godlike and that other companies can do stuff they need?

[mr moose]

Just now, laminutederire said:

 It's now the 4th time I'll have to repeat myself about what I said. Can't you read English properly? What language should I translate it to for you?

Here you go for the 4th time in English.

 

Resorting to snide insults does nothing for your position other than reaffirm you are coming from a more emotional position than a rational one.

 

Nvidia has just as much invested in RT over the last 7-8 years as any other company. End of story.

 

 

 

 

[straight_stewie]

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

Well now you misread me on purpose then. I said that they're not doing cutting edge path tracing. There are other people and companies better than they are at path tracing currently, and well... That's life and that's not saying they don't know anything, or are new to it. That just means that no they're not stomping on everyone doing perfect thing that no one can match. Because that's not the case, they're a player in the game and other companies provide really important insights on how it can be done.

Actually, it is cutting edge: It's the first time that a ray tracing specific ASIC has been designed, let alone put on production silicon. The architecture also saw another huge addition that people seem to be glossing over: It is the first time that a 3 dimensional matrix multiply accumulator has been designed, let alone put on production silicon. That last one has repercussions for all sorts of thing, the least of which is anything to do with graphics.

 

Most of these arguments that people are having stem from being completely misinformed about technology as a whole. In this case, about the difference between pre rendering, real time rendering, and the difference between the performance of software vs. that of an ASIC.

 

Sure. There are many, many ways to do raytracing: ahead of play time. As of right now, there is only one way to do Ray Tracing in any way that begins to approach real time on reasonable hardware, and that is to leverage Nvidias RT cores. Is it the best solution possible, we don't know. But right now it is the only solution available, and it is a disservice to computer science as a whole to dismiss it and demand that no one so much as publicly experiment with using the technology, which is what everyone that doesn't like RTX seems to be doing.

That's all we are saying when we say that RTX is good. Why can't anyone understand that?

 

[mr moose]

26 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

. How fanboy can you be to not even allow people to think Nvidia is not godlike and that other companies can do stuff they need?

You see this is the problem right here,  All I am doing is giving credit where creedit is due, but you are on a crusade to deny Nvidia any credit even when they have earnt it.  So who is the fanboy?

13 hours ago, laminutederire said:

 

Issue is that Nvidia is trying to push a tech they don't know.

 

13 hours ago, laminutederire said:

Yeah because it's not ready yet. Nvidia is marketing not a lot. As you said it's been done quietly for a certain time, they're the only one bragging about it that's all.

But everyone see then as the day tracing gurus now... ...   the useless rtx of today

 

 

12 hours ago, laminutederire said:

Well he's not wrong on the fact that Nvidia are no path tracing experts.

 

11 hours ago, laminutederire said:

My point being is that it's no secret why they're buying out Disney/Pixar and academic researchers:

...

 

Lots of techs that currently Nvidia hasn't pushed out because they lacked the brains who were familiar enough with all those techs

And then you have these gems thrown in:

2 hours ago, laminutederire said:

My point is that you can idealize Nvidia as gods all you want, it's not the case.

Why is that a f** issue to say that they aren't world leading in something? Come on.

Look at the science behind what renderman can do more than Optix and you'll see that there are a lot of fancy stuff that Nvidia had nothing to do with in that renderer.

And if Nvidia had the brains to do it for rtx, why did they have to poach every university in the recent past?

The reason why they hired a lot of those people is because they understood there is a lot more to Ray tracing than what rtx is currently doing.

You see , no one is idealizing Nvida or making them out to be "gods"  I have from the very beginning claimed that they are just another link in the chain of RT evolution, however you seem to be getting rather irate at the idea they are even doing something let alone doing something good.

 

Clearly you have a bee in your bonnet as no one has claimed nvidia are gods or even world leading (except maybe a few industry specialists who see great things in it) you are.

[laminutederire]

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Resorting to snide insults does nothing for your position other than reaffirm you are coming from a more emotional position than a rational one.

 

Nvidia has just as much invested in RT over the last 7-8 years as any other company. End of story.

Well I repeated it four times already. It just gets annoying at some point.

 

Well show me your figures because I don't think so. They invested quite a lot in AI for starters, that's why they use it so much for their RT tech, to have a return on investment. They also invested in VLSI design for their chips. So unless they have more than twice the budget as everyone else who can sometimes focus solely on that, I don't know how they can manage that. They invested sure, but not as much as you think. Mostly because as I said, their old investment on RT was mostly to me as an avenue to make money off of AI in which they vastly invested, and it's very recent (last one or two years That they were really trying to push out something ground-breaking, which will pay off in probably 3-5 years given the life cycle of such research).

And you can bring optix as an argument all you want, you should read what it is actually about. It's an sdk which gives a useful api to build renderers with. This is why I said it's not a proof Nvidia has an expertise in rendering scenes. It shows Nvidia has an expertise in gpu acceleration of important building blocks of path tracing. But it's still not a complete path tracer able to compute the most efficiently volumetric rendering, certain path exploration techniques, path guiding and so on.

[laminutederire]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You see this is the problem right here,  All I am doing is giving credit where creedit is due, but you are on a crusade to deny Nvidia any credit even when they have earnt it.  So who is the fanboy?

 

 

 

 

And then you have these gems thrown in:

You see , no one is idealizing Nvida or making them out to be "gods"  I have from the very beginning claimed that they are just another link in the chain of RT evolution, however you seem to be getting rather irate at the idea they are even doing something let alone doing something good.

 

Clearly you have a bee in your bonnet as no one has claimed nvidia are gods or even world leading (except maybe a few industry specialists who see great things in it) you are.

I never said they didn't do anything. I said they're not the experts you make them to be solely because other people have sunk 20 years on that when they didn't so you can't expect them to be world leaders. And that fact seemed to irritate you since you took your time ignoring i was just saying that they're far away from real ray tracing and that their released approach is limited.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

Well I repeated it four times already. It just gets annoying at some point.

 

Well show me your figures because I don't think so. They invested quite a lot in AI for starters, that's why they use it so much for their RT tech, to have a return on investment. They also invested in VLSI design for their chips. So unless they have more than twice the budget as everyone else who can sometimes focus solely on that, I don't know how they can manage that. They invested sure, but not as much as you think. Mostly because as I said, their old investment on RT was mostly to me as an avenue to make money off of AI in which they vastly invested, and it's very recent (last one or two years That they were really trying to push out something ground-breaking, which will pay off in probably 3-5 years given the life cycle of such research).

And you can bring optix as an argument all you want, you should read what it is actually about. It's an sdk which gives a useful api to build renderers with. This is why I said it's not a proof Nvidia has an expertise in rendering scenes. It shows Nvidia has an expertise in gpu acceleration of important building blocks of path tracing. But it's still not a complete path tracer able to compute the most efficiently volumetric rendering, certain path exploration techniques, path guiding and so on.

what figures?  would you argue you need figures to show AMD was invested in multi core tech being the first to bring it to mass market, would you argue you need figures to show AMD were invested in 64Bit? of course not, it's obvious.  There is no need to argue anything about it, just like RT, Nvidia bought RTX to the market, you don't need figures and a 1000 page thesis to see the work they have been doing, hell it's all over the internet,  from game dev's to animators are all excited about it. 

 

It's just you who is hell bent on trying to devalue any contribution they make.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

I never said they didn't do anything. I said they're not the experts you make them to be solely because other people have sunk 20 years on that when they didn't so you can't expect them to be world leaders. And that fact seemed to irritate you since you took your time ignoring i was just saying that they're far away from real ray tracing and that their released approach is limited.

Again, you are trying to argue that people are calling them "world leaders", who said they were?  who said they were "gods"? please link me to the post where someone called nvidia world leaders and gods.

 

No the problem here is the exact opposite, you are actually making bold claims that Nvidia don't know what they are doing and then trying to sidestep the erronisity of those claims by arguing the people are saying things they are not.

[laminutederire]

27 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

I maintain, rtx has it is now is incomplete. How is that a bold claim? Does it perform extremely well? No.

Is it able to do full path traced scenes real time? No as well.

From that it's pretty straightforward to see that there is something missing. And as I said, part of what is missing is present in the work of many researchers outside of Nvidia who did a lot already. And your refusal to acknowledge that rtx has obvious flaws is baffling here, especially when pointed out to literature talking about the part of the equation rtx is ignoring (and Optix as an sdk does as well by the way).

 

When you look at the tech they pushed it's heavily relying on deep learning denoising, and that's its most significant contribution. From that you gather they leveraged a lot more their expertise in deep learning. Deep learning denoising is not path tracing specific. That's image processing.

It starts leveraging path tracing specific knowledge when you include path tracing information into the denoiser that is not the image itself. An example of that can be found onnthe literature I gave you. And that's the route they need to go, hence why they hired people from rendering heavily these days, to be able to add that missing part. How is that erroneous bold claim?

[illegalwater]

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

Does it perform extremely well? No.

 

Is it able to do full path traced scenes real time? No as well.

Why does it have to perform "extremely well"? Even the 2060 can do RT at 60 FPS, which is perfectly playable. The goal posts on what's playable moving from 60 FPS to 144 FPS just because RTX entered the scene is utterly moronic.

 

Wrong. http://brechpunkt.de/q2vkpt/
 

[Mihle]

Software wise Nvidia haven't done that much when it comes RT, but hardware wise, they have the best product I know of.

I don't personally think it's good enough to be worth the money, but it's the best hardware wise.

[pas008]

Just now, Mihle said:

Software wise Nvidia haven't done that much when it comes RT, but hardware wise, they have the best product I know of.

I don't personally think it's good enough to be worth the money, but it's the best hardware wise.

working with developers isnt doing anything?

[Mihle]

4 minutes ago, System32.exe said:

Why does it have to perform "extremely well"? Even the 2060 can do RT at 60 FPS, which is perfectly playable. The goal posts on what's playable moving from 60 FPS to 144 FPS just because RTX entered the scene is utterly moronic.

 

Wrong. http://brechpunkt.de/q2vkpt/
 

It capable of running 60 FPS doesn't make it good. With RT on in current games that has it you aren't actually RTing much, only spesific things that the developer chooses.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

I maintain, rtx has it is now is incomplete. How is that a bold claim? Does it perform extremely well? No.

Is it able to do full path traced scenes real time? No as well.

that's a nice sidestep, I have never addressed such a claim. so why ask me as if I have?

5 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

From that it's pretty straightforward to see that there is something missing. And as I said, part of what is missing is present in the work of many researchers outside of Nvidia who did a lot already. And your refusal to acknowledge that rtx has obvious flaws is baffling here, especially when pointed out to literature talking about the part of the equation rtx is ignoring (and Optix as an sdk does as well by the way).

 

What refusal?  I never said it wasn't flawless. I didn't even say it was huge. All I have said is that the industry is excited about it. 

5 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

When you look at the tech they pushed it's heavily relying on deep learning denoising, and that's its most significant contribution. From that you gather they leveraged a lot more their expertise in deep learning. Deep learning denoising is not path tracing specific. That's image processing.

It starts leveraging path tracing specific knowledge when you include path tracing information into the denoiser that is not the image itself. An example of that can be found onnthe literature I gave you. And that's the route they need to go, hence why they hired people from rendering heavily these days, to be able to add that missing part. How is that erroneous bold claim?

 

 

Again, you are the one who has adamantly claimed Nvidia are:

-not experts

-don't know what they are doing

-don;t have the brains for RT

-made it all marketing for a non existent product

 

Stop trying to insinuate people are saying things they are not.  It is you who is making obvious claims about nvidia that are not only wrong but obviously wrong.

 

Again why is it important to you that Nvidia not be credited where that credit is due? why do you have a problem with them being a part of this tech?

[Mihle]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

working with developers isnt doing anything?

I said "haven't done that much", didn't say they haven't done anything. Also, software wise Nvidia is using is not only Nvidia, it's basically Nvidia + Microsoft from my understanding. 

What I mainly ment was just look at the movie industry or other RT software stuff, they have done more of the base work.

[pas008]

Just now, Mihle said:

I said "haven't done that much", didn't say they haven't done anything. Also, software wise Nvidia is using is not only Nvidia, it's basically Nvidia + Microsoft from my understanding. 

What I mainly ment was just look at the movie industry or other RT software stuff, they have done more of the base work.

oh an industry use that takes alot

vs mainstream to anyone?

 

hmm

[illegalwater]

7 minutes ago, Mihle said:

It capable of running 60 FPS doesn't make it good. With RT on in current games that has it you aren't actually RTing much, only spesific things that the developer chooses.

You do realize that a year ago the idea of any real time RT in games was totally unthinkable, right? Going from zero RT to partial RT at 60+ FPS is a big step forward.

 

 

[Nowak]

13 hours ago, Humbug said:

No current GPU would be able to run that in realtime.

While that is true, I feel that Skyrim could end up benefitting from a completely revised lighting model, especially since most other lighting mods are either too bright or too dark and don't provide any actual benefit over the vanilla lighting model.

 

Perhaps now is not the time for a ray tracing Skyrim mod, since the 2080 Ti would still be too slow for that, but, we all know that someone's gonna mod ray tracing into Skyrim eventually. If it can be done for Quake 2 then it can be done in just about any game that supports mods.

[Mihle]

11 minutes ago, System32.exe said:

You do realize that a year ago the idea of any real time RT in games was totally unthinkable, right? Going from zero RT to partial RT at 60+ FPS is a big step forward.

 

 

Where did I say it wasn't? 

A big step forward doesn't automatically make it good enough to make it worth the price?

It just makes it much better than what it was before.

[Mihle]

17 minutes ago, pas008 said:

oh an industry use that takes alot

vs mainstream to anyone?

 

hmm

As I said, they have done the hardware that makes it possible.

The software is just what others have done before and tailor it for the hardware and make it so you can use it in games. (partial RT) and some of that last is also done by Microsoft.

[pas008]

1 minute ago, Mihle said:

As I said, they have done the hardware that makes it possible.

The software is just what others have done before and tailor it for the hardware and make it so you can use it in games. (partial RT)

thats alot of work but then again we dont know if they got some of that knowledge from intel's larrabee on their cross license deal too lol

 

[illegalwater]

6 minutes ago, Mihle said:

Where did I say it wasn't? 

A big step forward doesn't automatically make it good enough to make it worth the price?

Whether or not it's worth the price is purely subjective. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with your entrenched opinion.

[Mihle]

10 minutes ago, System32.exe said:

Whether or not it's worth the price is purely subjective. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with your entrenched opinion.

Never said it wasn't subjective. If it's worth the price is subjective. If current RT is good is subjective too. If it much better than it was or not is not subjective and I have never said it wasn't. You indirectly put word in my mouth.

I don't know if you just miss understood me or what.